A Guide to the Exhibition of English Medals. British Museum. Department of Coins and Medals
were not so successful as those made after the Italian method; and in order to remove from the surface the roughness of the casting, the medals were then submitted to the medallist's or goldsmith's hands to be chased. In this manner a smooth and sharp surface was obtained; but the chasing required to be very skilfully done. The castings in lead on account of the softness of the material took a much more even surface than in the case of the harder metals, and rarely required any after-chasing.
The process of repoussé work in its first stage was somewhat similar to casting. A model was made in wax, from which a mould in a hard metal was cast, and on this hard mould was placed a thin silver or copper plate, which was then beaten into the mould with a hammer till it received its final form. This process was a long and difficult one, and required much skill; consequently the number of repoussé medals is very small as compared with those which were cast. Repoussé work had one great advantage, that of obtaining a high relief, and on good medals, a striking effect. Not unfrequently, especially in Germany, the mould was made of wood, and the plate then hammered into it; but this method was not so satisfactory, as the degree of sharpness was much lessened.
The process of engraving was more simple; but perhaps not less difficult. The medals were executed by direct incision with the graver or dry point on a plate of silver or steel, and thus every line told, and the excellence of the work depended upon the accuracy and sharpness of the outline.
In the case of struck medals, the die was engraved or cut in steel, which was hardened, and from which proofs were struck in gold, silver, copper, &c. This process was not at first successful, as the mode of striking was simply by the hammer, by which means sufficient force could not be obtained. This was, however, obviated by the invention of the screw, which was first adopted in the sixteenth century, but did not entirely supersede the use of the hammer until the middle of the seventeenth century. Medals are now as a rule produced by striking.
Medallic Art.
Of the medallists who worked during the reign of Henry VIII. we know nothing, and none of the medals bear the artists' signatures. The process employed was that of casting; but this was often done with little skill, and in consequence all the medals are highly chased. The medals of the reign of Edward VI. show no improvement in the art; but those of Mary and Philip, which are exhibited, being executed by the Italian artist Trezzo, are of far superior work. It is scarcely fair to class these among English medals, as they were executed in Madrid under the orders of Philip II., in whose service Trezzo was retained during the greater part of his life. That the works of this artist were much esteemed in his own time we learn from Vasari, who says, 'This master has no equal for portraits from life, and is an artist of the highest merit in other respects.' During the reign of Elizabeth, a great improvement is manifest in medallic art, which may be seen in the medals commemorating the defeat of the Spanish Armada, all of which, so far as it is known, were produced by native artists. There are other fine medals of this reign; but these are the work of foreign artists. Of such is the remarkable one with the portrait of Mary Queen of Scots by Primavera, and also a number of Dutch medals, among which are the splendid life-like portraits by Stephen of Holland. These medals are all cast and afterwards chased, and are certainly very fine examples of Dutch art. It is not improbable that this artist first studied at Nuremberg, which was the great school for medallists in Germany, and in which Albert Dürer himself had worked.
The medals of James I. are for the most part of Dutch work; and as few are signed, we are unable to ascertain by whom the majority were executed. As at this period the new invention of the screw for striking coins and medals was coming into general use, there are in consequence a number of struck medals. The engraved portraits of the royal family and others, classed at the end of the series of James I., are by Simon Passe. This artist worked chiefly with the graver in a neat clear style, which possesses much originality. His works have great merit in their class, especially his portraits, many of which were taken from life, and are remarkable for their precision and sharpness of outline. Besides these medals Passe executed frontispieces and bookplates, which are also well engraved. The abundant medals of the reign of Charles I. and of the Commonwealth were chiefly produced by three artists, Thomas Simon, his brother Abraham, and Thomas Rawlins. We must add to these the works of Nicholas Briot, who by his new invention of the balance for striking coins and medals had rendered great service to medallic art. His medals as well as his coins are all remarkable for their clearness of design and sharpness of execution. Briot did not reside in England after 1633, so that all his works date from the early part of Charles's reign. There are also a few medals by Jean Varin or Warin, who with George Dupré ranks first among French medallists. His medals are always cast, and generally in high relief. Of the two Simons it may be truly said that they stand first as English medallists, the beauty of their work having never been equalled in this country. As portraits the personal medals are faithful and expressive. The brothers produced joint as well as separate medals: in the case of a joint work Abraham appears to have made the model, whilst Thomas, who was a more skilful engraver, did the after-chasing. From an example in the British Museum, it is evident that the Simons first made their models in wax, and from these or from moulds in sand then cast their medals. The work of Thomas Simon was not confined to medals, for he executed all the Seals for the Commonwealth and for Charles II., as well as a fine set of coins which bear the portrait of the Protector. His last work of this kind, the Petition Crown of Charles II., has never been equalled in technical delicacy of execution, and is certainly the finest coin of modern times. Thomas Rawlins cannot be mentioned in such high terms as the Simons. His work was far above the average; but it failed to attain the sharpness and high finish which characterise that of his two rivals. Some of his coins are perhaps superior to his medals. Mention may be made here of the work of two other artists, specimens of whose medals will be found exhibited among those of Charles II. These are Pieter van Abeele and Müller, whom Bolzenthal calls 'der Meister Müller,' two Dutch medallists who worked in the repoussé style before and during the reign of Charles II. The medals of these artists are in high relief, and are executed with marked skill. Some of them are chased.
At the Restoration Rawlins was reinstated in the place of Chief Engraver to the Mint which he had held before the Commonwealth; and as his attention appears to have been chiefly directed to the coinage, there are very few medals by him after this time. It was not so with Thomas Simon, who was specially engaged to prepare dies for the new Seals, for he continued to work at his medals and produced a large number, including several for the coronation. There are some medals (Nos. 182—183), executed by him in anticipation of the Restoration, which were probably made with the object of retaining through the merit of his work the post of Chief Engraver, to which he had been appointed by Cromwell. In this he did not succeed, but was transferred from the Mint to the Office of Seals. Abraham Simon also continued to work for some time after the Restoration; but he held no official post. In the meanwhile a new set of artists had sprung up in England, who with few exceptions monopolised the medallic work in this country during the reign of Charles II. These are the Roettiers, who had been introduced to Charles during his stay in Holland, and of whom there were three brothers, John, Joseph, and Philip. It is of the eldest brother, John, that we have the most numerous and finest works. The character of the medals of this period differs very much from those of the Commonwealth. They are always struck, as the new invention of Briot had now quite superseded the hammer, and are in low relief. The execution of the work is good, the medals being very sharply cut and the portraits full of expression, whilst the reverses have a more picturesque style, somewhat approaching that of the Italian medals of the sixteenth century, but in lower relief. The only other medallist of this period who calls for notice is George Bower or Bowers, the style of whose work is similar to that of the Roettiers, although not of such good execution and finish. John Roettier and Bower still continued to work during the reign of James II., and during a portion of that of William and Mary; but with the accession of William, the Dutch period of medallic art in England began and continued till the death of Anne. The artists of this time are very numerous, but only the chief ones need be here enumerated, who are Jan and Martin Smeltzing, brothers, Jan Luder, Jan Boskam, Georg Hautsch, and Jan Crocker or Croker. This last artist not only executed a large series of medals, but he also cut all the dies for the coinage of Anne as well as many of that of George I. and George II. The style of the medals of the Dutch period is somewhat similar to that of the Roettiers, the relief being still lower. The reverse designs are also often picturesque,